Passenger stamps on Sheffield bus driver’s head.

[barleycorn 10]

It's not about what is stolen, or over what time frame, and maybe therein lies the argument.

If it was me, in a remote farmhouse, not knowing who was intruding and for what purpose, I'd be bricking it. The fact they might only be wanting the TV might actually come as a relief. I'd be there gun in hand (metaphorically, I don't own a gun), shaking, hoping that he (they? - its dark and I cant see how many)wasn't about to rape or murder the wife & kids.

 

Shaky hand, sensitive trigger, heightened senses ... you put it together. End result, he's a victim, I'm a murderer.

 

Surely, this is not correct

This is a somewhat different scenario than that of the Martin case and certainly different to the apparent stance of Tommo68...

He had, or had attempted, to steal from martin and got shot for his trouble.. I can't see anything wrong with that.

... who seems to think death is a suitable punishment for theft.

 

For the record you can defend yourself (and your family) if burgled by use of appropriate force. There may be occasions where appropriate force results in the death of the assailant. It would however be unlikely to be considered appropriate to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back.

 

jbv

[Event Horizo 10]

Do you think we should condone shooting people in the back, who are trying to flee? That is certainly not self defence.

 

If an assailant is trying to knife you to death for example or trying to kill your wife/son/daughter and you happen to find a loaded gun in your hand, fair enough.

Shooting someone who's running away is vengeance.

 

You'd be dead already then as the assailant would have killed you before you held up your righteous stick and decided to fight back.

First rule of defence - get the first hit in.

[Halibut 12]

You'd be dead already then as the assailant would have killed you before you held up your righteous stick and decided to fight back.

First rule of defence - get the first hit in.

 

Utter rubbish.

[denlin 12]

Can we please have the list of things which, if stolen, makes it permissible to shoot the thief dead. Also, a time frame from after the theft to when it is no longer acceptable to shoot them dead would be appreciated.

 

jb

 

He fired in the dark because he was at end of tether after repeated break ins and there was no intent to shoot anyone. If Fearon had gone to the assistance of Fred Barras or called an ambulance he would still be here, in fact if he had not taken him or himself to the place he had previously burgled none of us would need to have this argument

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Not rubbish at all. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. We are ridiculously soft on criminals in this country, hence the high crime rates and high levels of fear of crime and criminals.

[Penistone999 10]

Utter rubbish.

 

so you would let someone attack you and not fight back ?

[sgtkate 10]

so you would let someone attack you and not fight back ?

 

Of course not. But if someone hit me with their fists, I wouldn't pull out a gun and shoot them. As I'm quite a small female, I might get away with grabbing a nearby brick and hitting them with that because that would be proportionate and reasonable.

 

If Tony Martin had thrown something at them or even thumped them he'd not have been convicted, but his response was not proportional to the threat he had. Being at the end of your tether is not an excuse to murder someone.

[Cyclone 10]

Not rubbish at all. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. We are ridiculously soft on criminals in this country, hence the high crime rates and high levels of fear of crime and criminals.

 

How do I our crime rates compare to places that are not so soft?

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 13:36 ----------

 

He fired in the dark because he was at end of tether after repeated break ins and there was no intent to shoot anyone. If Fearon had gone to the assistance of Fred Barras or called an ambulance he would still be here, in fact if he had not taken him or himself to the place he had previously burgled none of us would need to have this argument

 

You don't "fire in the dark" and accidentally shoot someone in the back.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 13:40 ----------

 

You'd be dead already then as the assailant would have killed you before you held up your righteous stick and decided to fight back.

First rule of defence - get the first hit in.

 

First rule of self defence though, don't attack people who are no threat to you... And that quite clearly includes people running away. Because that's just assault (or worse).

[barleycorn 10]

He fired in the dark because he was at end of tether after repeated break ins and there was no intent to shoot anyone. If Fearon had gone to the assistance of Fred Barras or called an ambulance he would still be here, in fact if he had not taken him or himself to the place he had previously burgled none of us would need to have this argument

 

Then he should have fired into the air. If you fire a shotgun in the direction of fleeing burglars (dark or otherwise (it certainly wasn't pitch black anyway)) then don't be surprised when you hit one of them.

 

jb

[Tommo68 10]

And they're all completely wrong.

 

If anyone's opinion differs from yours then of course they are wrong...FFS

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have children? One of your kids nicks a bar of chocolate from my corner shop and I shoot them dead.

 

Can you see anything wrong with that?

 

In this extreme scenario of yours ...

I'll concede that it may seem a little over the top

but please use a little imagination......

if people knew that their children could be shot for thieving then the parents that care would put more effort into educating their children accordingly.

 

So in answer to your question, under the circumstances I have explained then NO not only do I have no objection I would expect it and so would my children, which is why they would not do it.

.

.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 21:03 ----------

 

No, he waited for them, sat on a staircase, fired at them once (with his illegally held shotgun), when they ran, he followed them to a window, and fired at them again, shooting them in the back.

All 3 people involved were guilty of crimes, none of them deserved to die

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and the belief that you are right.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 09:02 ----------

 

Are you trying to morally justify the illegal possession of firearms?

 

Don't be naive.. The state has came to the conclusion that it its opinion the state would be better off if the populace were not in a position to bear arms against the state so they basically deprived all but the wealthy of the right to hold firearms. Now that I do think is wrong.

.

The law cares, it's quite clear on how self defence works.

 

It was not self defence, but pleading that may have been martin's best defence... it was stop robbing me you scrote.. So.. who cares.. only one died which is unfortunate better luck next time.

 

What a surprise that this thread is in full pitchfork, revenge fantasy mode.

 

What a surprise that someone would think martin had not done the right thing and would try to justify themself and their beliefs with a comment like your last one.

 

Got no argument then try and discredit or belittle; is still not a valid response despite how often someone tries to do it on this forum. Its pathetic.

.

[woodmally 10]

I know we have quite rightly digressed onto other issues relating to incorrect sentencing. I was angered today when I read this in the news. This is what annoys me about this "Gentleman" he uses mental health as an excuse yet people with genuine problems dont even get basic rights or listened to

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31759094

 

They then get tarnished using the same brush as this bloke who is using a serious issue to get away with a despicable crime. Many of these people affected wouldnt even dream of doing what he has done to the bus driver. Yet he gets help and these dont.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2015 at 17:38 ----------

 

I think I saw him wandering round the centre of town today. He is a huge fellow. I was surprised the driver got out of his cab to confront him. I dont think I would have.